Context.-There is increasing interest in using whole slide imaging (WSI) for diagnostic purposes (primary and/ or consultation). An important consideration is whether WSI can safely replace conventional light microscopy as the method by which pathologists review histologic sections, cytology slides, and/or hematology slides to render diagnoses. Validation of WSI is crucial to ensure that diagnostic performance based on digitized slides is at least equivalent to that of glass slides and light microscopy. Currently, there are no standard guidelines regarding validation of WSI for diagnostic use.Objective.-To recommend validation requirements for WSI systems to be used for diagnostic purposes.Design.-The College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center convened a nonvendor panel from North America with expertise in digital pathology to develop these validation recommendations. A literature review was performed in which 767 international publications that met search term requirements were identified. Studies outside the scope of this effort and those related solely to technical elements, education, and image analysis were excluded. A total of 27 publications were graded and underwent data extraction for evidence evaluation. Recommendations were derived from the strength of evidence determined from 23 of these published studies, open comment feedback, and expert panel consensus.Results.-Twelve guideline statements were established to help pathology laboratories validate their own WSI systems intended for clinical use. Validation of the entire WSI system, involving pathologists trained to use the system, should be performed in a manner that emulates the laboratory's actual clinical environment. It is recommended that such a validation study include at least 60 routine cases per application, comparing intraobserver diagnostic concordance between digitized and glass slides viewed at least 2 weeks apart. It is important that the validation process confirm that all material present on a glass slide to be scanned is included in the digital image.Conclusions.-Validation should demonstrate that the WSI system under review produces acceptable digital slides for diagnostic interpretation. The intention of validating WSI systems is to permit the clinical use of this technology in a manner that does not compromise patient care.

No abstract

No abstract

Atherosclerotic stenosis of the internal carotid artery is an important cause of stroke. The aim of this guideline is to analyse the evidence pertaining to medical, surgical and endovascular treatment of patients with carotid stenosis. These guidelines were developed based on the ESO standard operating procedure and followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The working group identified relevant questions, performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the literature, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and wrote recommendations. Based on moderate quality evidence, we recommend carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with ≥60–99% asymptomatic carotid stenosis considered to be at increased risk of stroke on best medical treatment (BMT) alone. We also recommend CEA for patients with ≥70–99% symptomatic stenosis, and we suggest CEA for patients with 50–69% symptomatic stenosis. Based on high quality evidence, we recommend CEA should be performed early, ideally within two weeks of the last retinal or cerebral ischaemic event in patients with ≥50–99% symptomatic stenosis. Based on low quality evidence, carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be considered in patients < 70 years old with symptomatic ≥50–99% carotid stenosis. Several randomised trials supporting these recommendations were started decades ago, and BMT, CEA and CAS have evolved since. The results of another large trial comparing outcomes after CAS versus CEA in patients with asymptomatic stenosis are anticipated in the near future. Further trials are needed to reassess the benefits of carotid revascularisation in combination with modern BMT in subgroups of patients with carotid stenosis.

Patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack and non-valvular atrial fibrillation have a high risk of recurrent stroke and other vascular events. The aim of this guideline is to provide recommendations on antithrombotic medication for secondary prevention of stroke and other vascular outcomes in these patients. The working group identified questions and outcomes, graded evidence, and developed recommendations according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and the European Stroke Organisation (ESO) standard operating procedure for guidelines. The guideline was reviewed and approved by the ESO guideline board and the ESO executive committee. In patients with atrial fibrillation and previous stroke or transient ischemic attack, oral anticoagulants reduce the risk of recurrence over antiplatelets or no antithrombotic treatment. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants are preferred over vitamin K antagonists because they have a lower risk of major bleeding and death. Recommendations are weak regarding timing of treatment, (re-)starting oral anticoagulants in patients with previous intracerebral haemorrhage, and treatment in specific patient subgroups of those of older age, with cognitive impairment, renal failure or small vessel disease, because of a lack of strong evidence. In conclusion, for patients with atrial fibrillation and ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants are the preferred treatment for secondary prevention of recurrent stroke or thromboembolism. Further research is required to determine the best timing for initiating oral anticoagulants after an acute ischemic stroke, whether or not oral anticoagulants should be (re)started in patients with a history of intracerebral haemorrhage, and the best secondary preventive treatment in specific subgroups.

Post-stroke dysphagia (PSD) is present in more than 50 % of acute stroke patients, increases the risk of complications, in particular aspiration pneumonia, malnutrition and dehydration, and is linked to poor outcome and mortality. The aim of this guideline is to assist all members of the multidisciplinary team in their management of patients with PSD. These guidelines were developed based on the European Stroke Organisation (ESO) standard operating procedure and followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. An interdisciplinary working group identified 20 relevant questions, performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the literature, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and wrote evidence-based recommendations. Expert opinion was provided if not enough evidence was available to provide recommendations based on the GRADE approach. We found moderate quality of evidence to recommend dysphagia screening in all stroke patients to prevent post-stroke pneumonia and decrease risk of early mortality and low quality of evidence to suggest dysphagia assessment in stroke patients having been identified at being at risk of PSD. We found low to moderate quality of evidence for a variety of treatment options to improve swallowing physiology and swallowing safety. These options include dietary interventions, behavioral swallowing treatment including acupuncture, nutritional interventions, oral health care, different pharmacological agents and different types of neurostimulation treatment. Some of the studied interventions also had an impact on other clinical endpoints such as feedings status or pneumonia. Overall, further randomised trials are needed to improve the quality of evidence for the treatment of PSD.

The aim of the present European Stroke Organisation guideline document is to provide clinically useful evidence-based recommendation on reversal of anticoagulant activity VKA (warfarin, phenprocoumon and acenocoumarol), direct factor II (thrombin) inhibitors (dabigatran etexilat) and factor-Xa-inhibitors (apixaban, edoxaban and rivaroxaban) in patients with acute intracerebral haemorrhage. The guideline was prepared following the Standard Operational Procedure for a European Stroke Organisation guideline document and according to GRADE methodology. As a basic principle, we defined use of oral anticoagulation pragmatically: oral anticoagulation use is assumed by positive medical history unless relevant anticoagulant activity is regarded unlikely by medical history or has been ruled out by laboratory testing. Overall, we strongly recommend using prothrombin complex over no treatment and fresh-frozen plasma in patients on VKA plus vitamin K. We further strongly recommend using idarucizumab in patients on dabigatran and make a recommendation for andexanet alfa in patients on rivaroxaban and apixaban over no treatment. We make a weak recommendation on using high-dose prothrombin complex concentrate (50 IU/kg) for all patients taking edoxaban and for patients on rivaroxaban or apixaban in case andexanet alfa is not available. We recommend against using tranexamic acid and rFVIIa, outside of trials. The presented treatment recommendations aim to normalise coagulation, there is no or only indirect data on effects on functional outcome or mortality, and only little data from randomised controlled trials.

The optimal blood pressure (BP) management in acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) and acute intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) remains controversial. These European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations to assist physicians in their clinical decisions regarding BP management in acute stroke. The guidelines were developed according to the ESO standard operating procedure and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The working group identified relevant clinical questions, performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the literature, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and made specific recommendations. Expert consensus statements were provided where insufficient evidence was available to provide recommendations based on the GRADE approach. Despite several large randomised-controlled clinical trials, quality of evidence is generally low due to inconsistent results of the effect of blood pressure lowering in AIS. We recommend early and modest blood pressure control (avoiding blood pressure levels >180/105 mm Hg) in AIS patients undergoing reperfusion therapies. There is more high-quality randomised evidence for BP lowering in acute ICH, where intensive blood pressure lowering is recommended rapidly after hospital presentation with the intent to improve recovery by reducing haematoma expansion. These guidelines provide further recommendations on blood pressure thresholds and for specific patient subgroups. There is ongoing uncertainty regarding the most appropriate blood pressure management in AIS and ICH. Future randomised-controlled clinical trials are needed to inform decision making on thresholds, timing and strategy of blood pressure lowering in different acute stroke patient subgroups.